High Court Karnataka High Court

Munavar Pasha vs State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Munavar Pasha vs State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
    RESPGNDENTS
  ii1(}Ciifj'r=t?1e order passed by the District 8:; Sessions Judgc $5
'- ii=L0';,«--'Pr::-V, Tumkur in S.C.No.1S8/2007 dated 5.12.2007 and

  «~ 'I'his revision petition coming on for admission this data
 the Court made the following;

In: THE men coum' or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY 01? MAY, 2003

BEFORE   

THE HON'ELE MI?.J{IS'i'IC£3 SUB!-"IASH B.ADi   'V  

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.32}l2008.. .:"    H

BETWEEN:

Munavar Pasha S] 0

Basha, P.A.Ho1cier,

Aged about 38 years,
Rcaiding at 28 Nokia Rasta,
931 Biock, Jayanagazr,
Ba.I1gaiore~26O {)1 1,

Repmsenfing on behalf Qf   _  '
RC Owner ef the lorry  
No.CAA--4701   V .  
Syed Zaheer S/0 Syéd"..%_&1i.-zraer, V   
Aged about 21 years, -f_   '
Annasa11drapaJ3,*a.,v_     
Ba11ga1ore-17h; =  _  .  PETITIONER

 V (Bf;  Adv.)

é.E'3...D_= V V _
1    « . . . . . .. 'V

Repmagnted hy.'I'aya1ekere
Pdlice statian, % . 

VA if'§'1ijs "»i1;'1.l§P is filed U/3.397 }?/W 401 of Cr.P.C. praying

 Qthei order, direction as dean: fit.



ORDER

The petitioner has quesfioned the order ~
Fast Track C.ou:<*t~V, Tumkur, 1'3 u
application uncier Section 451 R/W 457 1 'V V

2. Petifioner claims that, ,4.,1}hc ”
Holder of registered owner of {he foo. of
the vehicle. ‘ ‘

3. The Eearaed Judge, passed
the order iiavour of the
registered _

4. Lea.ri}_ed._ …_};;ctitio12er submits that, the

pctifioner is a Poxfiér I:io }der am} he would produce

the vahicie’a’s’ and wouid require before the Court and

iohglrge oiioetcd afld he cannot produce the

V :§oiv13::1e.

_ Lcjaxnéds Juclge has observed that, on the apprehension

ihfipcjfifiofinar, vehicle cannot be released to Powczf of Attomey

‘ 1. Lv Hoiififll .. I

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is acting as a Power of
Attomey on behalf of the owner, who is the Itizgistered owner
the vehicle. The nzleasc of the vehicle in favour of &e..r(:gist;éi5§§gV1″”*.:::
owner cannot be founii fault with by the PoWer “:.of
Holder and the learned Judge has rightly f0Iv’ I’é”1′:’.’:3u’:;’;Sf;

the vehicle: in favour of the registered owner s;1bjcot«–

certain condifion. I finé no reason to
Accoxdizagiy, this revision pctifion ”

mp; n